We have some defensive scheme adjustments to make regardless of personnel...and I trust we will. At some point we’re simply going to have to include coverage as a functional part of the playbook. Without that you can add all the good players you want and never become relevant against playoff teams.

Ahh ... OK our Seattle guys. That makes a bit more sense. Sorry I missed your meaning the first time...good point.
That might have helped bring him here but market forces are still in the Colts favor to wait to resign him...

I don’t think I can connect your dots. 19 starts on a poor line....benched then waived late in season, yet the Seattle guys were high on him?
We claim him, he fills a reserve role. Now he’s started a few games on a line full of high picks that is gelling....that’s not a guy who is candidate for extension. That’s the description of a guy you want to see more from. I don’t think that the kind of extension Ballard would offer as of today is the kind that he would accept...maybe in January

The D seemed ahead of schedule to start the year...but we’re seeing the standard holes in the scheme of recent weeks. They are committed to this path...and feels like we’ve got to capitalize and find a 3Tech to have any shot of making it work...
Can’t force it but if this is the DL class to do so then I’m for drafting DL early...

If he continues to play this well at RT it will be tough to move him regardless of the original vision for him. He has no physical deficiency which would make it seem like fools gold to keep him there...so I think Ballard will say that this worked out better than he thought and go about using his draft capital accordingly....if he finishes the year in similar fashion.
We’ll be able to re-sign Good at near minimum for depth and Clark/Haeg return for their 4th year. Glowinski can be re-signed reasonably as well...then draft another G/T prospect as fits your board on day 2 or 3 and we’re good to go.
Of course we’ll add another couple of reclamation projects in the off season as always...and may find another serviceable vet like Glowinski.

I don’t think you’re giving Venturi quite enough credit. He is dogmatic and needs to tone down the know it all thing...but he’s offering a very unique voice to the general public that rarely gets to hear unfiltered commentary from a career NFL coach

Let's win 8+ games before we make any declarations of progress comparatively with other regimes...until then, I'll enjoy the fact that I believe Ballard is building with solid principles that are likely to have a big payoff.

If you listen closely to Ballard, one of his top priorities is building and preserving an organic leadership hierarchy in the locker room. He doesn’t think you can purchase it, and isn’t willing to buy it until he’s built it.

Things aren’t this complicated.
Anderson was a disruptive interior player in any scheme but Ballard was never going to play him inside as evidenced by the interview where Anderson was down 25 pounds to play outside...and that was clearly never going to work.
Ballard wanted to maximize his roster space for greatest probability to discover long term value in this scheme this year for players that fit his specs. To that degree Anderson wasn’t a scheme fit.
If Ballard’s priority was maximizing wins in 2018 Anderson would be on the roster. That makes people uncomfortable so let’s just throw a blanket over it with scheme fit.
You have to make trade offs to build what you want in a league that is dominated by group think. Ballard is different than that...in a good way. I don’t like the scheme but I do like a GM that will commit to a path he believes in without regard to popular opinion.
Trading Anderson was a definitive commitment to what Ballard believes in boldly...and it will absolutely work in the end.